In a recent post, I noted that there is a bill sponsored by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and several other Democrats which makes one single demand - that large single-family investors must divest essentially all of their homes by selling them to families and not to other landlords.
I commented recently, in response to a colleague's question about something ridiculous being proposed in our nation's capital, that DC is an economics-free zone. This proposal won't change my opinion.
Wow. I didn't read your previous post bu I have trouble wrapping my mind around the stupidity of this proposal. Of course, the Senators must know that this legislation has no chance of passing. Do you think this might largely be a symbolic "FU" to large corporations with little thought given to consequences? I just went to a conference of mostly liberal economists (long story) and they share a blind hatred of "corporations." I can only attribute this to groupthink. They have never worked in the private sector, so the real world never intrudes to challenge their fantasies.
Seems to me this might be an offshoot of the ridiculous "Abundance Agenda." I am now reading "Abundance" and at first I thought I might like it because I thought it advocated deregulation of housing, which in general seems like a good thing. What it really is is a manifesto arguing for central planning; Henceforth, all decisions on zoning and everything else will be made by Ezra Klein and similar pointy heads who are untainted by any experience with the real world. (I'm about a third of the way through and it is riddled with errors and unsupported assertions.)
Interesting take on Abundance. I haven't read the book yet, but I generally find Klein's positions to be much more defensible than the left critics of it. But, I sort of know what you're talking about. For instance, on housing, they have some gaps in their understanding which limit the effectiveness of their argument. Those gaps are understandable, but it does go to what you're talking about. The difficulty of technocracy in a world of imperfect knowledge.
I'm not sure how symbolic these things are. Versions of this have passed in individual jurisdictions. These days you can't go to any public meeting without seeing a couple of sincere progressives going to the mic and demanding that SOMETHING BE DONE about these greedy corporations buying up the homes. I think the anti-corporate sentiment that you highlight is probably deep enough and broad enough that a plurality of voters or representatives will cut our noses off to spite our faces. Really, that's what happened in 2008. So, yes, I think some version of this could pass.
So different from the world I grew up in. I sometimes wonder if the difference today is that when I was a kid, everyone knew someone who owned a small business; a gas station or bookstore or grocery or jewelry store, so everyone bought into the "free enterprise" ethic. Now, everything has consolidated. Plus, socialism is no longer a clear and present danger.
I literally just had a dealing with a NIMBY who was arguing in these same terms of “demand”, as if somehow he could identify some kind of ostensibly illegitimate source of housing demand, then it would be a straightforward process of calling out the supposed conspiracy and blocking it.
It was pretty disgusting. And just plainly obvious that he was looking for an excuse to see himself as the hero.
I commented recently, in response to a colleague's question about something ridiculous being proposed in our nation's capital, that DC is an economics-free zone. This proposal won't change my opinion.
Wow. I didn't read your previous post bu I have trouble wrapping my mind around the stupidity of this proposal. Of course, the Senators must know that this legislation has no chance of passing. Do you think this might largely be a symbolic "FU" to large corporations with little thought given to consequences? I just went to a conference of mostly liberal economists (long story) and they share a blind hatred of "corporations." I can only attribute this to groupthink. They have never worked in the private sector, so the real world never intrudes to challenge their fantasies.
Seems to me this might be an offshoot of the ridiculous "Abundance Agenda." I am now reading "Abundance" and at first I thought I might like it because I thought it advocated deregulation of housing, which in general seems like a good thing. What it really is is a manifesto arguing for central planning; Henceforth, all decisions on zoning and everything else will be made by Ezra Klein and similar pointy heads who are untainted by any experience with the real world. (I'm about a third of the way through and it is riddled with errors and unsupported assertions.)
Interesting take on Abundance. I haven't read the book yet, but I generally find Klein's positions to be much more defensible than the left critics of it. But, I sort of know what you're talking about. For instance, on housing, they have some gaps in their understanding which limit the effectiveness of their argument. Those gaps are understandable, but it does go to what you're talking about. The difficulty of technocracy in a world of imperfect knowledge.
I'm not sure how symbolic these things are. Versions of this have passed in individual jurisdictions. These days you can't go to any public meeting without seeing a couple of sincere progressives going to the mic and demanding that SOMETHING BE DONE about these greedy corporations buying up the homes. I think the anti-corporate sentiment that you highlight is probably deep enough and broad enough that a plurality of voters or representatives will cut our noses off to spite our faces. Really, that's what happened in 2008. So, yes, I think some version of this could pass.
So different from the world I grew up in. I sometimes wonder if the difference today is that when I was a kid, everyone knew someone who owned a small business; a gas station or bookstore or grocery or jewelry store, so everyone bought into the "free enterprise" ethic. Now, everything has consolidated. Plus, socialism is no longer a clear and present danger.
Nah. I think all these sorts of prejudices are always in play, ebbing and flowing over time.
I literally just had a dealing with a NIMBY who was arguing in these same terms of “demand”, as if somehow he could identify some kind of ostensibly illegitimate source of housing demand, then it would be a straightforward process of calling out the supposed conspiracy and blocking it.
It was pretty disgusting. And just plainly obvious that he was looking for an excuse to see himself as the hero.